Punya wrote:Re the humorous criticism: Yes, well that's one way of looking at it but maybe DJKR is trying to steer us to the middle ground!

that is what I think privately - that his advice was rather wake up call for notorious FB spammers, not really set of rules to follow literally. maybe now some people will actually think before posting on FB and post mindfully and with good motivation.

Karma Dondrup Tashi wrote:If you think that your guru's speech should always be "kindness and softness" then Vajrayana is not for you.

I have attended dharma talks in rooms where the lion's roar was hot enough to roast a marshmallow.

It's not a question of respect but of basic sanity. Does this guy seriously want to swap resumes with DKR? It's not funny. As someone once said, I pity the fool.

Not always, but I think here, it is not appropriate. And you know, there is still a difference between wrathful and what it is expressed here.The wrath power we may find in a powerful being is still not harmful. There is always a beneficial aspect from it. If harm is done, this is not beneficial isn't it?

Of course, it is a question of respect, respect is sanity, you are clearly lacking of common sense.

Social Media Guidelines for so-called Vajrayana Students Response to Feedback9 April 2013

This is a follow up to the media guidelines for vajrayana students that I posted a couple months ago.

Firstly, I would like to offer my apologies to the readers who expressed unhappiness over my use of ‘extreme’ and ‘strong’ words, analogies and idioms—although I can’t help thinking that such responses are a sign that the post has served its purpose.

As I read the various comments you’ve made, I see some readers have mentioned that as Buddhadharma is about ‘primordial inclusiveness,’ secrecy (specifically the vajrayana) isn’t necessary because the teachings are, by their very nature, ‘self-secret’. If you have the capacity to ‘get it’ you will, and the fact that so many don’t get it is a demonstration of this truth. This notion of the teachings being ‘self-secret’ certainly does exist in the vajrayana. It’s something Dudjom Rinpoche used to talk about, along with various other traditions, like that of wearing mantras, mudras, pictures and chakras, and even of tying them to animals, to create a connection between the being and the Dharma; and ‘liberation through seeing’ or hearing or smelling or touching certain people or things.

What we need to realize is that when we read a Dzokchen text to a cow, beside creating a special connection to this specific being through the voice, which is of course primarily supported by your intention of helping this being, the cow is not going to scrutinize the teaching. While it may not have fervent devotion towards the teaching, it also does not have the risk of having doubt and impure perception to the teaching and the teacher. Whereas we are not cows, most of us. We will have thoughts, and more likely we have more doubts than one-pointed trust. So it is one thing to make it accessible to beings like cows, but it’s another thing to be completely open to others who can contemplate and scrutinize, therefore also creating impure perception.

Another reader has come up with quite a good argument for posting vajrayana pictures by asking why you can hang a vajrayana thangka in your living room, but cannot include a photo of it on your Facebook timeline.

Others quite rightly point out that some lamas, even those with the highest authority, teach the vajrayana openly, exhibit mandalas and secret sacred dances, and even sell tickets to raise money from such activities. They describe how, through the internet, teachings on mahamudra and mahasandhi are just a click away, in the form of transcripts, audio files, video streams, etc. All of which shows just how widely the teachings are spreading, which is something that, as Buddhists, we can do nothing other than rejoice about.

We must bear in mind, though, that what’s being discussed here is a set of guidelines for practitioners, for individual people, not the spiritual path they follow. The Buddhist path itself doesn’t need the help of guidelines, but the people following it do. So it’s important to remember the clear distinction between the path and a follower of that path, ‘dzogchen’ and ‘a dzogchenpa’, ‘chagchen’ and ‘a chagchenpa’, ‘democracy’ and ‘a democrat.’

To have and to follow a set of guidelines is about developing discipline, and as you know, discipline is extremely important on the spiritual path. The same person who taught us that everything we see and experience is an illusion and doesn’t exist, also taught the so-called ‘Six Paramitas,’ the second of which is about discipline. And I must emphasis that what we’re talking about here is the discipline of the person following the path, the ‘path dweller,’ not the path itself. Actually, whatever your activity, whatever your goal, even if it’s just to make a cup of coffee, discipline is indispensible.

Some of you point out that it’s necessary to keep the sacred tantra secret, not because tantra has anything hideous or embarrassing to hide, but because secrecy is one of the quintessential practices of the vajrayana. Actually, secrecy can be applied to all aspects of the vajrayana, even to samayas that, on the face of it, appear to be completely mundane; like keeping the existence of Wednesday a secret from the world if your guru tells you to. The point here is not to start arguing that the whole world already knows about the existence of Wednesdays; it’s that no matter what, you as an individual keep it secret. Why? Because it’s ‘secrecy’ that creates ‘sacredness.’ When Guru Rinpoche first came to Tibet, it’s said that King Trison Deutsen and all his people had to beg him many times to divulge the name of his root guru before he was finally persuaded to tell them.

If those who claim they love the vajrayana would pay just a little attention to the history of Buddhism, they would realize just how much vajrayana has suffered because the vast majority of this world is unable to accept its teachings. Even ‘know suffering and abandon the cause of suffering’ is way too much for most people to deal with, so how could they possibly accept ‘samsara is bliss’ and ‘emotion is wisdom?’ And in countries like Thailand and Taiwan, the age-old debate about whether or not vajrayana is a path that misleads its followers with all its talk of sex and deity worship, continues to rage—there’s nothing new about it at all.

Now, you might say, “So what? Those who can’t believe, won’t believe. Too bad!” But we are followers of the Buddha, the all-compassionate one, and so we have also accepted responsibility for bringing all sentient beings to enlightenment. And if we can’t bring them to enlightenment, at least we shouldn’t put any of them off. To feel even the remotest aversion to any aspect of tantra will distance you for many, many aeons, from the opportunity of being able to perceive the vajrayana mandala purely. Have any of you heard of ‘vajra hell?’ We most probably experience vajra hell when we lose the openness that allows us to see the exceptional wisdom of the vajrayana, and instead become narrow-minded and unwilling so much as to look at its astonishing wisdom. To cause such an aversion in someone else is to deprive them from connecting with an incredible path. They may not necessarily burn or roast or be minced in some theistic-looking hell, but not being able to appreciate the wisdom of the vajrayana is in itself, vajra hell. So, as vajrayana students, we have a responsibility not to turn others away from the Buddhist path.

There’s a Tibetan saying, “Where the lion leaps, the jackal should not jump” because if he tries to emulate a lion, the jackal will end up breaking his neck. The great bodhisattvas of past and present act as they do because they are profoundly confident and if you have developed that kind of confidence, as a practitioner I can only rejoice and say, please, be my guest, feel free to post whatever you want.

This is heartfelt warning from one vajrayana student to his fellow vajrayana students, although I am quite sure it won’t make the slightest difference. Nevertheless, in spite of the proliferation of tantric images, information, etc, in the public domain, I still wish to remind us all that in the vajrayana, secrecy is a practice.

Contentment is the ultimate wealth;Detachment is the final happiness. ~Sri Saraha

Look , DJKR is a lineage holder and a self-described control freak. He is obviously still coming to terms with these two aspects of his life in light of planting the dharma in the hearts and minds of western students.

I have said this before but i might as well say it here, these lamas are between a rock and a hard place when it comes to us Westerners. They have a incredibly precious spiritual tradition that they more than anything want to preserve and suddenly they find themselves no longer in Tibet but in the world and from their traditions' point of view, dealing with (what did someone here say - cotton headed?) idiots and a**holes and fools (and i count myself one among them). Oh yeah, cotton-headed idiots and a**holes and fools with egos, no less. A daunting task.

How would you do it? I heard someone ask DJKR just recently in Hong Kong (i heard this on tape, btw) if the Buddha can make a mistake. And after a long pause, he answered yes. I happen to disagree. "Mistake" is a concept straight out of discursive, dualistic mind, implying as it does its opposite, "perfection". But both "mistake" and "perfection" are concepts. Buddha-mind is just things as they are.

We always want to change things, to improve them, make them better. But who is it that wants this? Ego, that's who. It's the hardest work in the world to let things be exactly as they are. How would you like to be asked to preserve a tradition when the very heart of that tradition says to rest in things as they are?

Every time you take a shower, do your laundry, vacuum the floor, you are doing something to change the environment you are in. You can extrapolate from there.

We are always changing things. I might go so far as to say everything single thing you do is an attempt to change your circumstances in some way.

Johnny, I'm not sure who you are asking re: a quote. If you want to hear the talk by DJKR that was given in Hong Kong recently, you might have to contact Siddhartha's Intent, Hong Kong. I received it in an email and am not sure if its okay to post. Or maybe you are asking Ngodrup, I'm just not sure.

Mala: We change, yes. That we require more, less, better, something elseis the very definition of samsara-- the restless desire that things be different.We want less of what we don't like, more of what we do and we igonore everythingelse. Bringing that neurosis into Buddhadarma doesn't help us one bit. Bringing Buddadharma into our insatiable hope and fear is our only hope-- it, just as it is--might actually crack the habit. If we let it.

"All memories and thoughts are the union of emptiness and knowing, the Mind.Without attachment, self-liberating, like a snake in a knot.Through the qualities of meditating in that way,Mental obscurations are purified and the dharmakaya is attained."

DJKNR's advice--which BTW I found more than clear, and quite reasonable--was intended for his students, who will presumably be eager to follow it. Other lamas may well give different advice. Those who do not consider themselves students of DKRNR may, of course, do as they like. For my part, everything I have heard about him (at least so far) has raised him in my estimation. He seems to be one of the good ones.

***Edit: I did not know about this older thread. Thanks to Greg for moving things around. My comments I guess are just a revival of this stuff, then.***

How does this apply/not apply to Dharma Wheel? I think a lot of this was written with facebook in mind, but Dharmawheel is public. Anybody can find in search results the comments we have made in our threads.

I post this partly because some folks on this forum who have received very profound Dzogchen and Mahamudra teachings are really open about what they've been taught and use those profound teachings as ammunition in many different strains of discussion about all sorts of Buddhist doctrinal and practical issues. I'm worried because these sometimes these comments may not come across as their writers intend.

Because of their profundity and nonduality, they sometimes seem to cast aside much of conventional Buddhist teachings, even other nondual ones. To the outsider, the statements I've been reading might sound nihilistic, non-Buddhist, sectarian, or worse. They may also seem to be really judgmental or dismissive of the Sravakayana and even about the causal path of the Bodhisattvayana.

I know some basics about Buddhism and I'm a highly trained writer, but I myself have misinterpreted several statements recently and thought that a member of the forum was disparaging the Bodhisattvayana from some lofty Maha Ati tower--however, I was way off-base. Regardless, if I was so confused and reactionary, how much more so the general public? It's my fault that I was reactionary and ignorant--I'm just saying that I feel really uncomfortable as a Dzogchen student when I see some of these statements that I just don't think it's appropriate to say in an open forum. I'm saying it seems like people aren't thinking of the grand scope of their audience. It's not a private, quiet talk between two or three Buddhist scholars of different lineages who know one another well; it's always something like:

I'm not sure how to avoid this dynamic on a board where we are all trying to discuss and converse about the vast range of yanas and teachings...I'm really trying to elicit people's responses here. I know we all share in common the desire to be conscientious and compassionate in this strange electronic space.

***Edit: I did not know about this older thread. Thanks to Greg for moving things around. My comments I guess are just a revival of this stuff, then.***

How does this apply/not apply to Dharma Wheel? I think a lot of this was written with facebook in mind, but Dharmawheel is public. Anybody can find in search results the comments we have made in our threads.

I post this partly because some folks on this forum who have received very profound Dzogchen and Mahamudra teachings are really open about what they've been taught and use those profound teachings as ammunition in many different strains of discussion about all sorts of Buddhist doctrinal and practical issues. I'm worried because these sometimes these comments may not come across as their writers intend.

Because of their profundity and nonduality, they sometimes seem to cast aside much of conventional Buddhist teachings, even other nondual ones. To the outsider, the statements I've been reading might sound nihilistic, non-Buddhist, sectarian, or worse. They may also seem to be really judgmental or dismissive of the Sravakayana and even about the causal path of the Bodhisattvayana.

I know some basics about Buddhism and I'm a highly trained writer, but I myself have misinterpreted several statements recently and thought that a member of the forum was disparaging the Bodhisattvayana from some lofty Maha Ati tower--however, I was way off-base. Regardless, if I was so confused and reactionary, how much more so the general public? It's my fault that I was reactionary and ignorant--I'm just saying that I feel really uncomfortable as a Dzogchen student when I see some of these statements that I just don't think it's appropriate to say in an open forum. I'm saying it seems like people aren't thinking of the grand scope of their audience. It's not a private, quiet talk between two or three Buddhist scholars of different lineages who know one another well; it's always something like:

I'm not sure how to avoid this dynamic on a board where we are all trying to discuss and converse about the vast range of yanas and teachings...I'm really trying to elicit people's responses here. I know we all share in common the desire to be conscientious and compassionate in this strange electronic space.

Thoughts?

Nila,

Im willing to be the idiot, i'll respond.

There are no perfect circumstances anywhere. No matter what is said or done, there will always be the possibility of misinterpretation. Even if perfect secrecy were able to be maintained always and everywhere, that too could be misinterpreted by those who do not understand the teachings. This is the nature of samsara.

So what to do? You relate with the circumstances that are actually present. Not imagined circumstances, or hypothetical circumstances, or possible circumstances, but actual circumstances. And that includes all the unknowns. Unknown people, unknown observers, unknown and misunderstood Buddhist teachings. All of it.

The reality is we do not live in a closed world anymore. Perhaps, at one time, Tibet and even Bhutan were closed societies. They are not anymore.

Once, while traveling in India with another woman, we were invited to lunch with a group of engineers. They wanted to show us a bridge they were building and being the sociable ladies that we were, we accepted the invitation and went off to lunch with them. During lunch, they bragged about how the previous year the had hosted a group from New Zealand, etc. Clearly, they enjoyed these events.

But after lunch, when we were walking around outside, admiring the bridge, etc., one of them asked me privately, "How did you know we were 'okay' as a group of men to have lunch with? How did you know that we weren't some of the awful men that are in India?"

Now this was an interesting question to me. Clearly, he was concerned about our welfare and was wondering about these "western women" and how they made decisions. My answer was pretty simple, "When you are not protected all the time, then you learn how to make these kinds of decisions."

You learn.

You cannot protect human beings (or secrets) endlessly. It cannot be done. Of course, there will be mistakes, setbacks, errors, etc. And this is all a part of learning. Join the human race. The open human race.

We do our best. As long as our best includes heart, well, thats the best we can do. Being a control freak doesn't work anymore. And that's the way it is.

Well, I for one would be more comfortable if discussions of details about higher-yana, generally restricted practices were confined to a VIP group who were not anonymous and who could read and post when they have disclosed where and when they received the transmissions or wangs in question, etc. It would also be ideal if those restricted subforums were co-moderated by someone with significant knowledge in the area but also humble: ideally a Lama. But of course, this is samsara, and not all ideal things are easy to accomplish. EDIT: granted, the Buddhist Tantra Talk forum is a bit of a compromise, however.. not really what I had in mind.

However, books on Dzogchen are widely distributed these days, and even if in the Nyingma some practices like Thogal are taboo to discuss or learn without much preparation, instruction, and realization.. we find books that are quite open about similar practices from Bonpo writers that have a different approach. So if someone has a will to learn these things outside of a Buddhist traditional context, and the restrictions of that context: they could find a way. If someone does not like ignoring these traditional cautionary restrictions but prefers to abide by them: especially restrictions given by people's own root teachers: then they can choose to not read or write in topics that discuss such things. But it gets more complicated for instance when certain Dzogchen-pas want to only post about Dzogchen practice and view regardless of what the topic is or which subforum it is in!

Contentment is the ultimate wealth;Detachment is the final happiness. ~Sri Saraha